Re: Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm
Date: 2006-07-24 17:02:03
Message-ID: 44C4FD0B.3080601@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bort, Paul wrote:
> Given the concerns about running this on machines that don't have a lot
> of CPU and disk to spare, should it ship disabled?
>

Yes, certainly.

> Andrew, what do you think of pgbench reports shipping separately? I have
> no idea how the server end is set up, so I don't know how much of a pain
> that would be.
>
>
>

Well, we'll need to put in some changes to collect the data, certainly.
I don't see why we shouldn't ship the pgbench result separately, but ...

> P.S. My current thought for settings is scaling factor 10, users 5,
> transactions 1000.
>
>

... at this size it's hardly worth it. A quick test on my laptop showed
this taking about a minute for the setup and another minute for the run,
Unless we scale way beyond this I don't see any point in separate reporting.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nicolai Petri 2006-07-24 17:06:23 Getting current transaction id
Previous Message Nicolai Petri 2006-07-24 17:01:54 Re: inclusion of hstore software in main tarball